He said: 'The thing that's consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.'

Let's go out on a very, very long limb here and assume that it IS a choice: I still don't understand why anyone would give a fark.

If there is a gay gene, then the 'phobes should get 100% behind gay marriage if they want to lessen the incidence of homosexual behavior.

Yeah, but that's like saying "The Pro-Lifers should advocate for sex education and easy access to contraception to reduce the number of abortions." Logical, and yet they never seem to get behind such efforts.

fusillade762:He said: 'The thing that's consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.'

Let's go out on a very, very long limb here and assume that it IS a choice: I still don't understand why anyone would give a fark.

"It's genetic" vs. "It's a choice" is the Fallacy of the False Dichotomy in action. There are other possiblities as well.

Many traits are congenital, which means that one is born with the trait and has it throughout life. Most cannot be altered, and those that can are often only cosmetically altered, and require substantial medical intervention at that. And yet, congenital traits are not necessarily genetic.

Examples of non-genetic (or at least non-inheritable genetic) congenital conditions include (but are not limited to):

• Harelip, Cleft Palate,etc.• Spina Bifida and other neural tube defects (caused by insufficient folate in the pregnant mother's diet).• Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS ― caused by alcohol imbibed by the pregnant mother)• Thalidomide Babies (caused by the mother having used the otherwise mostly harmless pharmaceutical Thalidomide)• Any of a number of birth defects caused by the mother having contracted Rubella aka "German measles during pregnancy.• Any of a number of birth defects caused by Rh[esus] blood factor incompatibility between the mother and the fetus (the reason that blood tests are often required for a marriage license, to see if the husband is Rh+ and the wife is Rh− ― this one could be considered technically genetic and in a sense inherited, but is not caused by the direct expression of inherited genes).• Retrolental Fibroplasia (not strictly congenital, but happens very shortly after birth in premies only, and well before normal full-term birth would've happened ― the eyes and lungs are among the last things to develop prior to birth as neither will be needed until after birth, so premies often need oxygen under pressure, but this accelerates the growth of the still-growing retina, causing a column of retinal tissue to grow from the macula area often all the way to the back of the lens, resulting in lifelong blindness ― still a life-long condition that cannot easily be corrected that does not arise from genetics)

COMALite J:"It's genetic" vs. "It's a choice" is the Fallacy of the False Dichotomy in action. There are other possiblities as well.

Many traits are congenital, which means that one is born with the trait and has it throughout life. Most cannot be altered, and those that can are often only cosmetically altered, and require substantial medical intervention at that. And yet, congenital traits are not necessarily genetic.

In the case of male homosexuality, there's evidence of a fraternal birth order effect. I'm not aware of any similar correlation with lesbians.

fusillade762:He said: 'The thing that's consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.'

Let's go out on a very, very long limb here and assume that it IS a choice: I still don't understand why anyone would give a fark.

In a free country we shouldn't. The thing is that religious conservatives don't actually care for freedom. They love to bandy the word about, but in reality they oppose it when it comes time to put it in to action.

SkorzenyNinja:I heard that Dr. Thaddeus Venture had been working hard, even missing rest and nourishment to isolate the gay gene. If it wasn't for all the protestors and hearings, he would have destroyed it.

The idea that ANYTHING in the human experience can be whittled down to "nature OR nurture" (i.e. genetic OR choice) is just too ridiculous for words. To me, anyway. And yet, people keep trying, trying, to prove that it's a floor wax OR a dessert topping!

While I think that being gay is due to genetics, I just can't take the article seriously due to it being the Daily Fail.

But on the serious side here, this does make me consider that scientists, if they really have figured out which gene causes teh gay, there's gonna be someone trying to use that to make what they think is a cure.

Imagine the stories, people being forced to get the cure by homophobic relatives.

While scientific curiosity is great, they should just leave some things alone.

As to how it gets passed down: many genes have multiple effects, and even the gender patterning of the brain has many different results - not just sexual orientation, but also the tendencies towards aggression versus compassion, etc. A very, very heterosexual male who ends up killing or abandoning his offspring is not genetically advantageous.

Plus, since the genes involved would be related to sex hormones, it's very likely they have different effects in men and women. For example, a gene that increased the odds of male homosexuality but also increased female fertility might be overall very advantageous for the species. There's certainly no single "gay gene", but, like height, it's a combination of many genes forming a spectrum.

Sum Dum Gai:As to how it gets passed down: many genes have multiple effects, and even the gender patterning of the brain has many different results - not just sexual orientation, but also the tendencies towards aggression versus compassion, etc. A very, very heterosexual male who ends up killing or abandoning his offspring is not genetically advantageous.

Plus, since the genes involved would be related to sex hormones, it's very likely they have different effects in men and women. For example, a gene that increased the odds of male homosexuality but also increased female fertility might be overall very advantageous for the species. There's certainly no single "gay gene", but, like height, it's a combination of many genes forming a spectrum.

I don't see how identifying a "gay gene" at this point in history is a big plus for the GLBT community. For them and the others who accept them, such a finding would make little difference. But for those who don't accept them, the rhetoric would shift from "it's a choice" to "it's a defect", and somebody would start researching ways to "fix" it - this time with real science instead of prayer camps.

There's good odds that social acceptance will progress faster than medicine on this issue, but let's hope whoever finally cracks the code isn't a current-day Russian or Iranian genetic engineer employed by the state. Hardly anybody liked X-Men III and its vaccine plot, and that was just a metaphor.

I work in downtown Seattle, and a lot of the gay guys I know who are in their 40's have kids with an ex. It's a lot of societal pressure that allows the 'gay gene' to be passed, if there is one. As an aside, can I assume that anyone who says 'gay is a choice' has confronted that choice and decided NOT to be gay?

timujin:The same way my brother and his wife, both with brown hair, had two red headed kids?

I was gonna say, subby's not too bright.

Also, it doesn't have to be a singular trigger or anything. Just a predisposition placing one at a different point on a spectrum.

/this would all be easier if people would realize that fact that gender isn't binary, but stupidity wins the day for now.//there's another dumbass thread just above, about to go green, that illustrates said point re: stupidity.

Sum Dum Gai:As to how it gets passed down: many genes have multiple effects, and even the gender patterning of the brain has many different results - not just sexual orientation, but also the tendencies towards aggression versus compassion, etc. A very, very heterosexual male who ends up killing or abandoning his offspring is not genetically advantageous.

Plus, since the genes involved would be related to sex hormones, it's very likely they have different effects in men and women. For example, a gene that increased the odds of male homosexuality but also increased female fertility might be overall very advantageous for the species. There's certainly no single "gay gene", but, like height, it's a combination of many genes forming a spectrum.

Not sure how you define 'sex hormones' exactly but what evidence is there to support your statement about them? Are you running the old crap about gay guys having more estrogen or something? Totally debunked.

Aside from some pretty poor science behind some of the statements you make, your overall conclusion seems likely. It is entirely likely that a range of genes and environmental (nutrition/hormones/stress in the womb, metabolic and pschological incidents in development) would all be at play.

Bottom line is if your parents hate the fact you're gay, they can only blame themselves. They are responsible for all of the genetic and most of the environmental factors which would have played a role. Any dickhead who's all "How dare you be gay, get out of this house" to their gay kid is blaming entirely the wrong person.

Gyrfalcon:The idea that ANYTHING in the human experience can be whittled down to "nature OR nurture" (i.e. genetic OR choice) is just too ridiculous for words. To me, anyway. And yet, people keep trying, trying, to prove that it's a floor wax OR a dessert topping!